National Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watch
@Yestheypayme2dothis (7874)
United States
October 18, 2010 10:16pm CST
The debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's eight years in office. In less them two years Obama has spent 3 trillion dollars.The stimulus bills have failed and the country is much worse off today because they failed to stimulate the economy. Obama admits this week there is no shovel ready jobs.Home owners have been duped under the Obama administration.Millions of Americans have been force out of their homes by possibly fraudulent foreclosures. Food stamps set a record high in September with more than 31.5 million Americans on the program -- up 17 percent from a year ago, according to government data. Obama is out on the trail asking voters to keep the vision alive.Could some one please tell me what is Obama's vision for the country?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html
New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website
show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.
The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.
The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.
6 responses
@Qaeyious (2357)
• United States
19 Oct 10
And so you think voting for a republican this time will solve the problem?
This has been happening no matter who is voted in office, because silly US citizens keep thinking there are only two choices.
I only voted Democratic in 2004 to get someone out of the White House. You know how successful that was?
I'll never do that again. Both repubocratic parties need to get out of power now.
But the majority of you (US citizens) wants the same thing over and over again, so that is what we will get. The same thing over and over again.
It's a sign of insanity, you know. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
19 Oct 10
Who would you see as a viable third party candidate? How would you - realistically - get a third party candidate to win the elections? I mean, I completely agree that the US should indeed look past this "two-party mentality," but how do we get that to happen?
@Qaeyious (2357)
• United States
20 Oct 10
Honestly? As long as the system only reports on the repubocrat candidates, or puts the most emphasis on them, and the majority of US citizens continues to tolerate the lack of coverage for real change and supports the system taking the freedom of real choices, it won't happen for a very long time until maybe someone really screws up.
I make it known what I do. I used to vote libertarian until the bank/auto bailouts and the BP spill. I am leaning toward the Green party, but I am still studying the different choices.
But I won't vote repubocrat ever again. I won't win by voting for one, whether they win or not; not if I don't want either of them holding office.
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
23 Oct 10
I completely agree with you. I hope that one day other parties will be able to impose themselves. Unfortunately, I've heard a lot of people state that they refuse to vote for a third-party candidate because they consider it a "lost vote." In other words, they're so fundamentally opposed to Republican or Democrat ideals that they fear not voting against them.
@catriana13 (245)
• United States
20 Oct 10
Honestly, you can't expect one individual, regardless of their title or position in society, to solve 40 years worth of governmental problems and strife in just a short time. Obama is like any of us, doing a job.. He has countless miles of red tape to cut through, people to argue with, people to make happy, and people to upset. He also has to deal with the mess that was made before he took office. This doesn't justify or condemn what he's doing.. it just states that he is one man trying to combat the work of thousands, and nobody can expect high levels of success in such a situation. The government as a whole is a failure to the american people. Only by restructuring the entire system can a foothold be made to begin to climb out of the pit they have put us all in, and that is unlikely to happen.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
19 Oct 10
I'm no economist. My brain, if it's good for anything at all, is best dealing with words (small ones ) and not numbers. So, for the life of me, I cannot understand how spending money--and not just "money," but money we don't have: debt--is somehow the key to a fiscally stable future.
I can almost understand things looking through only healthcare. If, and I'm aware it's a huge IF, the government were able to do what it says--drive the costs down, provide affordable care, etc--then I can see where some things might bounce back in that general area. Of course, though, we'd also have to tamp down immigration like every other country offering healthcare as an entitlement. Anyone see that happening? We can't have it both ways.
My opinion: it's a startup program for government-controlled healthcare, which leads to government-controlled and mandated doctors, a do's and don'ts food list, uberhigh prices for "organics," etc...
So I can only see that being a good thing going one way, and a bad thing going the other one billion it could go.
And I can't even begin to understand what the rest of the money's for.
I realize a lot of the money of our debt in general is war spending. And while I don't agree with war, it's abundantly clear that nobody else is going to squash this growing terrorism threat rising out of the Muslim world with its many, many, many radicals.
But where's the rest of it?
One of my biggest fears as a young American, planning on raising a family in my beloved country one day, is that the only type of "classes" we'll have are the government class, ever rich and powerful, and then the rest of us breaking our backs to keep them living the high life.
My fear is shared by many, and it's been given some colorful and, depending on one's anal definition, possibly incorrect names. But damn. To look at government now compared to the people paying for government, I'd say it's a pretty legitimate fear.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
19 Oct 10
They fail to mention much but did everyone think that the bills will stop coming in on two wars and a failed economy.
Even the Brookings institute says the stimulus was to small. 1/3 of the stimulus went to tax breaks for those under 200k in earnings and 700 billinon is less then the military non war spending for defense in one year. Not a lot of money.
The dept is so out of control not only because of eight years of insanity, thirthy years of bad policy but there is less money coming in from taxes because of unemployment and bad economy.
This mess is not going to get fixed in one or two years because it was brought on by policy's that are thirty years old. We have bankers and investment company's that still don't think they did anything wrong. With that mentality how can you fix it?
Maybe it is time to start teaching business ethics in college again.